Two-for-two

A couple of stories of people getting it right:

1. "Nun offers mercy, but robber gets jail"

Sister Muriel Curran faced the man who shoved her to the ground and ripped away her purse three years ago. She quoted Scripture. She thanked him for the guilty plea that spared her a trial. And she asked a Baltimore County judge not to send him to prison.

"There is possibility and hope -- I believe in it, it's what I'm about -- in rehabilitation and a future," the 78-year-old nun said yesterday, explaining that she has difficulty believing in a penal system that sometimes leaves criminals worse off than before they went to prison. ...

Asked after the hearing what had inspired her unusual approach to the man who left her with broken bones and deep bruises, unable to fully raise one arm and incapable of living on her own any longer, Sister Curran answered simply.

"The Gospel," she said. "You hear that cliche -- 'What would Jesus do?' -- but if you live it, you've got to believe it." ...

Yesterday, on the morning he was scheduled to go to trial, Dodson pleaded guilty to one count of robbery. The decision spared the nun the trip to the witness stand that she said she would have dreaded.

Reading from a card, Sister Curran quoted a letter in the Bible from the Prophet Jeremiah: "For I know well the plans I have in mind for you, says the Lord, plans for your welfare, not for woe! plans to give you a future full of hope."

Turning to face Dodson, she said, "That is my hope for you, Charles. I would like to give that to you."

2. You may have heard about the "virtual slavery" case of the John Nash Pickle company in Tulsa, Okla. Journalist John Bowe tells this story in his book Nobodies: Modern American Slave Labor and the Dark Side of the New Global Economy. I haven't read his book, but I just listened to a recounting of this story, including interviews with Bowe, on public radio's This American Life. This account, presented by host Ira Glass, also includes interviews with many of the 52 Indian steelworkers exploited by the company as well as with the man who first began to help them -- a lay minister at the local Pentecostal church named Mark Massey.

Once Massey realized how these men were being exploited, he provided a few of the men with housing to get them out of the miserable company barracks and he met with company managers to try to reclaim the mens' passports, which the company had confiscated. Massey quickly found himself in way over his head with little idea of what to do, but he didn't let that stop him. He hired the only lawyer he knew. He moved the rest of the Indian workers into his own house. He organized churches and the local Indian community to provide meals.

Here's what Massey told Ira Glass:

"Our churches have been good to help foreign missions, but when the foreign comes into our own district, our own comfort area, we're not always ready to accept. ... I know we can't help everybody but I think everybody's given a little portion that they can do. And I know we can't turn around and change the world tomorrow, but just what's put in our little field here, our little corner, I feel like we're responsible for, so I felt like that was put in my corner. ..."

The whole This American Life story is about half an hour. It's worth the time. It's not every day that you hear a story that includes among its heroes a lawyer, a Pentecostal minister and a government bureaucracy. Nor is it every day that you get to hear a story with 52 happy endings.

Comments

[Richard Hershberger]

I heard that This American Life story when it aired. It was a genuine parking lot story--a story so compelling that if you arrive at your destination before the story is over you sit in the parking lot to hear the whole thing. For all that we complain about public radio being watered down, it sometimes lives up to its promise.

[Stan Taylor]

Very occasionally you hear about family members of a murder victim testifying in the sentencing phase of the murderer's trial and asking the judge NOT to give the perpetrator the harshest penalty. It's sad that this is so uncommon that it makes the news.

[Nenya]

Thank you for this. Sheds some light on some things I am going through at the moment. I have some thinking to do.

[Applesauce Parker]

It's stories like these that make me wonder sometimes if I'm missing out on something by being basically areligious.

[Amaryllis]

Since we're re-visiting Baltimore, some updates on the Sludge story, or "people getting it almost right."

[Amaryllis]

Since we're re-visiting Baltimore, some updates on the Sludge story, or "people getting it almost right."

[Amaryllis]

Sorry, Typepad strikes again.

[hapax]

Thank you, Amaryllis, for that update. For those who don't click through, here (IMO) is the money quote:

Dr. Herbert Needleman, a University of Pittsburgh scientist known for studies that linked learning deficits to low-level lead poisoning, said he's convinced that Farfel is an ethical scientist who might have grown distant from community sensitivities.

"You begin to think of subjects not as individuals but as data points, and they lose their individuality," Needleman said. "It happens to everybody, even to me. That's what happened to Mark."

[Amaryllis]

hpas: yes, that's what I was thinking. But also, to give the
guy his due:
Dr. Gary Goldstein, chief executive officer of Kennedy Krieger:
"[Farfel's] goal was to have a war on lead poisoning, and the war actually worked. Our clinic has almost closed. There are so few children with lead poisoning."

A lot of good intentions and actual accomplishments along with his missteps.

[Kristy]

Religion: you're doing it right.

Thanks for the Beltaine present, Fred. This makes my day brighter.

[Amaryllis]

Thanks for the Beltaine present, Fred

And to all the Slacktivistas, a branch of May:

A branch of May I bring to you,
here at your door it stands.
It's nothing but a sprout, but it's well budded out,
By the work of Our Lord's hands.

We've been a-rambling all of the night
to bring the summer home.
For summer is a-coming in
and winter is agone.

My song is done, I must be gone,
I can no longer stay.
God bless you all, both great and small,
And give you a joyful May.

(trad., May Carol)
Happy May Day!

[Technomad]

Before I asked for mercy, I'd definitely want to know whether the person who'd injured me had done so by accident or on purpose. If it was an honest accident, I'm good with asking the court to go easy. Deliberate? That, my...acquaintances...is another story entirely. My take on people who deliberately rob others is that they're analogous to dogs that have taken up killing livestock. If we can't kill them, we need to lock them up for good and for ever, if only to protect the weaker elements of the community.

What would that nun's compassion really mean, if the judge had let that guy go---and he'd gone right out and back to robbing, only, this time, throwing murder into the equation? Too many people seem to feel compassion only for those who don't deserve it (and spare me the rhetoric about how nobody "deserves" it, please---I've heard it a million times) while feeling none for the victims of their pity objects' crimes.

[hapax]

Technomad, compassion is not a finite resource, and mercy is not a zero-sum game.

What would that nun's compassion really mean, if the judge had let that guy go---and he'd gone right out and back to robbing, only, this time, throwing murder into the equation?

And what would it really mean, if her compassion had moved her to re-examine his assumptions about the humanity of his victims, and inspired him to show mercy on others as it had been shown to him?

In other words, playing the hypotheticals is a mug's game. We can only be responsible for our own choices and reactions, not what others choose to do with them.

[cjmr's husband]

The hypotheticals..

This is *why* we have judges and juries, and not just a book of sentences for crimes. It's entirely correct for Sister to forgive the robber -- nuns is good people.

And it's the judges prerogative to follow her recommendation or not. *maybe* this is just what this guy needs. The judge thinks otherwise in this case, of course...

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

Re: May Song - Thanks for posting that. I'm familiar with Loreena McKennit's adaptation, but not with the traditional.

And of course there's this old favorite. Of course, where I live, it's more like "Groweth lilac and bloweth pollen" and "The voice of the grackle is heard in the land." The voice of the grackle is like unto a rusty hinge creaking on high.

[Tonio]

Reading from a card, Sister Curran quoted a letter in the Bible from the Prophet Jeremiah: "For I know well the plans I have in mind for you, says the Lord, plans for your welfare, not for woe! plans to give you a future full of hope."

While Sister obviously has the best of intentions, the whole notion of "plans" sounds controlling. It sounds uncomfortably like notions about earthly suffering being divine punishment.

[pat greene]

Sounds controlling, Tonio? I suppose so. But given that she could have easily pulled out Exodus 21:24-27 -- "An eye for an eye," to save people from looking it up -- I think she took the better course.

[Ms. Anon E. Mouse, Esq]

the whole notion of "plans" sounds controlling. It sounds uncomfortably like notions about earthly suffering being divine punishment.

I think the notion of plan sounds controlling mostly when you read with an expectation of being controlled.

There are lots of times we make plans without suffering or punishment being involved. There are lots of times we make plans without trying to control the other person.

Teachers make lesson plans, with the hope of providing the best possible learning experience for the kids in their class. Health professionals make treatment plans, with the hope of providing the best possible care for their patients.

When I read, "For I know well the plans I have in mind for you ... plans for your welfare, not for woe! plans to give you a future full of hope." I read, "I've made a plan to bring you goodness/health/wholeness/peace (all ancient Hebrew understandings of welfare/shalom), not this pain/suffering/shit you're experiencing. My plan involves a hopeful future, not one filled with the same shit you've been experiencing all along."

Of course, this quote always raises the question of, "Well, if that's your plan, God, how come you've been so crappy at accomplishing goodness, health and wholeness in my life," but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with suffering or punishment, unless you're looking for it.

[Iorwerth Thomas]

Deliberate? That, my...acquaintances...is another story entirely. My take on people who deliberately rob others is that they're analogous to dogs that have taken up killing livestock. If we can't kill them, we need to lock them up for good and for ever, if only to protect the weaker elements of the community.

Er. I'm not sure that allowing the Fundamental Attribution Error to shape one's attitude to jurisprudence is going to result in justice, even if we leave mercy out of the equation.

[Tonio]

There are lots of times we make plans without suffering or punishment being involved. There are lots of times we make plans without trying to control the other person...

True, but we're talking about the idea of a god who would allegedly have total control over the events affecting people's lives. There is no reason to assume that such a god would have a benign agenda behind his plan for anyone, or a malign agenda, or even no agenda other than indifference.

More importantly, when a person claims to know that the god has a plan for someone else, that claim itself sounds controlling. If the claim were true, that would put the claimant in a position of power over the other, because the person would have knowledge of the god's intentions that the other does not.

(By the way, I love your thread name - I imagine a rodent going incognito with sunglasses and a wig.)

[Kristy]

There is no reason to assume that such a god would have a benign agenda behind his plan for anyone, or a malign agenda, or even no agenda other than indifference.

Oh, but consider the source, Tonio. Motive counts. The nun obviously thinks she has reason to believe the agenda is benign, and so she's sharing this passage in an attempt to comfort the man. You may think she's factually wrong in every particular, but it doesn't change the fact that she was trying to do a kindness.

[Kristy]

EEK! Oh, I got another Beltaine present, and it's pretty!

The ultimate in geekery... the vampire music video.

http://requiem.dark-embrace.org

Go look. Yes, now. Go, go, go, go. And a cookie if you can guess which one's me.

[yagowe]

@Kristy

You are the one reading in the alcove, yes?

[Kristy]

*laughs* am I that obvious? Yes, yes I am. *hands yagowe a cookie*

hee... *wanders off to shamelessly pimp the video elsewhere*

[Amaryllis]

Tonio: I've also heard that verse translated as "For I know the thoughts that I think towards you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of affliction."

Perhaps "thoughts" will sound less controlling to you than "plans." As in, "these are My hopes for you; do you think you can work with Me here?"

[Bugmaster]

Regarding solstice songs, I think the movie The Wicker Man (the British original, not the crappy remake) has the best compilation of them, in music video form. Plus, it features a scene of telekinetic X-Ray seduction. Telekinetic seduction, for when regular seduction just won't do !

I love that movie; I'm normally not a big fan of musicals, but I have to make an exception in this case. It wouldn't be nearly as hilarious if the main character didn't have "Cthulhu Food" practically tattooed on his forehead...

[Amaryllis]

I haven't seen The Wicker Man, in either version. Sounds, uh, interesting. But if it's got good music...

For year-round seasonal songs, my favorite sources are the various Watersons or Waterson:Carthy compilations.

Which is a good thing, because my husband started playing his Watersons Mighty River of Song boxed set at 5:00AM this morning. So I can truly say that we were up, long before the day, oh, to welcome in the summertime, to welcome in the May, oh.

[Jeff]

You are the one reading in the alcove, yes?

The correct answer is "Sari, I can't!"

[Jeff]

It wouldn't be nearly as hilarious if the main character didn't have "Cthulhu Food" practically tattooed on his forehead...

It's "Cthulhu Chow", isn't it? Did he have a red and white checkerboard tie?

[smgt]

Boo hoo hoo. God has a plan for all of us to grow like kudzu over the world. Boo hoo hoo. The idea that God could imagine out futures is controlling. Boo hoo hoo. God needs to die. Boo hoo hoo

[Tonio]

Oh, but consider the source, Tonio. Motive counts. The nun obviously thinks she has reason to believe the agenda is benign, and so she's sharing this passage in an attempt to comfort the man. You may think she's factually wrong in every particular, but it doesn't change the fact that she was trying to do a kindness.

While I can appreciate the kind intent, it still amounts to the nun thinking she knows what is best for someone else. No one should decide what is best for another person, as a matter of principle. (There are exceptions, such as a parent knowing what is best for his or her children.) The fact that the nun believes that her god knows what is best makes no difference according to the principle. In some situations, an honest belief about what is best for others can be worse than a malicious or self-serving agenda, because the good intentions may overcome others' right to self-determination.

Perhaps "thoughts" will sound less controlling to you than "plans." As in, "these are My hopes for you; do you think you can work with Me here?"

The concept of hopes may sound less benign. But that still involves placing trust in the person who has the hopes. Not the god, but the person who claims to know what the god wants. That distinction cannot be overemphasized. A person who desires to be trusted that way may not know the seriousness of what he or she is asking - the request essentially asks others to put their intellectual freedom and self-determination on the line. If you're like me, with almost no ability to read people's intention, the safest route is to not grant the trust in the first place.

[Tonio]

Also, some people express hopes for you as a euphemism for saying that something is wrong with you and you should change to fit their expectations.

[smgt]

Tonio, is it possible for you to imagine a nun who has no idea idea what God may plan for a man, but trusts that an infinite being who has and will exist for all time does have an idea what might be good for this fellow?

Could it not be about the plan, but the trust?

Or does does trust in an infinite being violate the rights of humans?

[Tonio]

Could it not be about the plan, but the trust?

Or does does trust in an infinite being violate the rights of humans?

Again, the issue is not trust in an infinite being, but trusting the person who says he or she trusts an infinite being. The person's intentions could be benign or malign, but one couldn't tell for sure. If the person was a nun, that wouldn't rule out malign intentions.

[hapax]

it still amounts to the nun thinking she knows what is best for someone else. No one should decide what is best for another person, as a matter of principle.

Oh, for heaven's sake Tonio.

There is an infinite gulf between "thinking" something and "deciding to act on it."

Tonio, I sincerely wish the best for you. And I truly think it is better for you to be alive than to be dead. To be happy than afraid. To be free rather than constrained. To be cherished than to be hated. And so forth.

And you know what? Even if you think I am somehow "controlling" you by these thoughts, that I am somehow exercising an illegitimate and immoral authority by wishing you well by my definition of "well"...

... I don't give a damn.

I'm not going to think, "Well, okay, it's good for Tonio to be a dead miserable despised slave if that's what he wants." I can't really stop you, of course. But it would be a total abdication of our common humanity to see a fellow human in what I consider abject suffering and to merely shrug my shoulders and say, "meh, maybe he LIKES that."

Yeah, compassionate thinking can be abused. But I would infinitely prefere to be guilty of that mistake than to be one of the neo-con pseudo-evangelicals who bleat piously, "the poor ye shall always have with you -- and after all, they must LIKE being poor, or else they'd be rich like us, wouldn't they?"

Pfaugh!

[Tonio]

Tonio, I sincerely wish the best for you. And I truly think it is better for you to be alive than to be dead. To be happy than afraid. To be free rather than constrained. To be cherished than to be hated. And so forth.

And you know what? Even if you think I am somehow "controlling" you by these thoughts...

I apologize - I didn't make my point properly. I recognize and honor your best intentions. And I'm not saying that these somehow control me. I'm saying that I must be the only person who determines what is best for myself. If I accept someone else's view in that matter, no matter what that view may be, I will have abrogated my responsibility to determine what is best for me. No one else can make my life decisions, and there is no reason for me to let others make those decisions for me. This is true no matter what intentions others may have.

[smgt]

So what you're saying is what? That you refuse to have others want good things for you for fear that you loose agency?

[hapax]

Well, that's fair enough. But how is that different from the nun pleading for compassion on her attacker, on the basis of HER best judgment?

The thief was perfectly free to say to the judge, "I'm sorry Your Honor, and I'm sure that the sister means well, but in my best judgment, I'd be better off in jail."

If that's what happened in this case, I think I missed it in the report.

(Now I'm afraid that the criminal DID have to accept the view of the judge, whether he agreed with it or not. That's the way our system works. And, on the whole, I think a good thing.)

[smgt]

Have you considered how much agency you loose by speaking English? You learned how to speak that language, and be trapped in all its agency stealing conventions, at the knees of parents or adult caretakers, the greatest agency thieves of all! Surely you should throw off that yoke and be free!

But why stop there! Toss away all those other terrible drains of your agency. Stop stopping at stop lights! Take food without exchanging it for goods or service! Ignore the cries of help form those around you! Be fully and completely free!

[hapax]

smgt, I think you're taking Tonio's point a little too far. There is a difference between insisting upon absolute responsibility for one's choices (and hoping that "with great responsibility comes great power") and demanding an antinomian free agency.

[Monkay]

Stop stopping at stop lights! Take food without exchanging it for goods or service! Ignore the cries of help form those around you!
"The world is your exercise-book, the pages on which you do your sums.
It is not reality, although you can express reality there if you wish. You are also free to write nonsense, or lies, or to tear the pages."
Donald W. Shimoda in Richard Bach's novel Illusions.

[bad Jim]

And nothing about the people saved from slavery?

Because, perhaps, we realize we wouldn't do that?

[not someone else]

Before I asked for mercy, I'd definitely want to know whether the person who'd injured me had done so by accident or on purpose. If it was an honest accident, I'm good with asking the court to go easy. Deliberate? That, my...acquaintances...is another story entirely.

I don't know about that. If someone takes my things deliberately, it's probably because they want my things. That's fine with me: I want my things too, so I can get that.

Whereas if they took my things by accident, they'd have to be a fucking idiot, and I'd want them to be punished so they don't do something like that again.

[Tonio]

That you refuse to have others want good things for you for fear that you loose agency?

I must be lousy at making a point, otherwise everyone would have gotten it by now...

My objection is not with people who want good things for others. My objection is with people who want to change things about others, under the assumption that they know what is best for others and that individuals don't know what is best for them. My whole point is about the latter group and its assumption. No matter what the motivations of the individuals in the group, the effect of the assumption is to treat others as children or drug addicts. That assumption runs through fundamentalist doctrine, the notion that people who disagree with the doctrine have to be rescued from that disagreement.

There is a difference between insisting upon absolute responsibility for one's choices (and hoping that "with great responsibility comes great power") and demanding an antinomian free agency.

It's not even about power. One is still responsible for one's actions even when one lets others make one's decisions.

I disagree with Wikipedia that "antinominian" is the polar opposite of legalism. Neither recognizes that ethics or morality are not about following rules. Ethics and morality are about recognizing that one's actions have consequences and choosing actions with the goal of having good results and avoiding bad results. Is that consequentialism?

[aunursa]

In the crime of robbery, the nun is not the only victim; all of society is victimized. While the nun may personally forgive her assailant, she does not have the authority to waive the penalty. Nor should she. If criminal sentences were determined by the wishes of the victims, rather than by law -- among other unintended consequences -- that would put all nuns at much greater risk of being targeted for robbery and other crimes.

[MikhailBorg]

Kristy... I am jealous. I've never met a LARP group that allowed Mages. "Too hard to GM, too powerful for the other characters" is what I always hear.

[Sarah Jane]

I'm not a parent, Tonio, but I am a teacher. And I make some really big assumptions about what's best for my students: to do well in my classes, to appreciate the subject matter, to respect their fellow students. I think it's best for them to get a good education, one that will help them become thoughtful individuals who lead happy, successful lives. Towards those ends, I prepare careful lesson plans, put a lot of energy into my classes, and make myself available to talk with them when they're in trouble -- whether with coursework or with other life issues. And yes, sometimes the best thing for them is to drop my class, transfer to a different school, or drop out of college entirely.

I genuinely want what's best for my students... but I'm also absolutely guilty of wanting to change them. I want them to come out of my courses more mature, more responsible, more self-aware, more confident of their own abilities, more respectful of those around them. Perhaps I'm infringing upon their "right" to self-determination; it's true that I'm acutely aware if I don't push them, they will passively sit there all semester and think/do/learn absolutely NOTHING.

None of us are ever fully separated from the care and responsibility of those around us, whether it's our parent, teacher, spouse, mentor, doctor, supervisor, or caretaker. And sometimes those people don't have our best interests in mind, so it would be foolish to trust blindly. But I also think it's pretty foolish to assume that anyone who expresses interest in your life and future must be intent on controlling you, and as a result never trust anyone at all.

[Amaryllis]

Tonio: My objection is with people who want to change things about others, under the assumption that they know what is best for others and that individuals don't know what is best for them.
Yes, we see your point. We just don't see how you're getting there from that story about forgiveness.

[Tonio]

But I also think it's pretty foolish to assume that anyone who expresses interest in your life and future must be intent on controlling you, and as a result never trust anyone at all.

I agree. I stress that I am not making that assumption. I thought it was clear in my last post that I see a distinction between people who simply "express interest in your life and future" and people who regard their judgment about your life and future as superior to your own. Was that not obvious?

I'm not sure what separates the two mindsets. Perhaps it's a distinction between wanting to help others who ask for help and wanting to help others based on one's own assumption about what help the person needs. Perhaps it's a distinction between feeling good about one's self for helping others who ask for help, and consciously believing that one is motivated solely to serve the commonweal.

Also, my posts typically reflect the fact that there is often a disconnect between a person's intentions and the effects of the actions that lead from the intentions. A person can have another's best interest in mind and still act in ways that harm the other person.

Yes, we see your point. We just don't see how you're getting there from that story about forgiveness.

My point had nothing to do with forgiveness. The implication of the Jeremiah quote is that an individual's decisions and choices for his own life are not important. This is true even though the nun was wishing a good future for the person. It reminded me very much of fundamentalists who respond to questions about the accuracy of the Bible with "I'll pray for you/your soul."

[Sarah Jane]

Tonio: I'm not sure what separates the two mindsets. Perhaps it's a distinction between wanting to help others who ask for help and wanting to help others based on one's own assumption about what help the person needs.

And I guess that's where I don't agree with you. I must assume that I DO know what help my students need. They don't come to me and say, "We think we should have this assignment today." Instead, they follow a set of assignments that *I* have prepared, based on a syllabus that *I* designed, the purpose of which is to teach them what *I* believe are the most important aspects of the field. I freely assume that they don't know enough about the field to decide what is or isn't important for them to learn.

Obviously I adjust my assignments and efforts once I see the kind of work they're producing -- but again, it's me making the decision what we cover in class, not the students announcing that they want to do X today. It's not that their interests are unimportant; it's simply that I don't think they've had enough background to be able to design their own curriculum.